[Fourpar]

While many might think the golfer responsible for his/her errant shot, the majority of the time that is not the case. Here is a link that may help:
http://www.sjschwartz.com/golflaw.ht...om/golflaw.htm
Most of the time, absent other influencing circumstances, the mere fact that a golfer hits a shot off his/her intended line does not impose liability. When you live on a golf course, you should expect occasional errant balls. My 2cents worth.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by hdken

How can it be so difficult to get an answer to a simple question? This has nothing to do with morals; it has everything to do with law. As an attorney in NY who lives on a golf course, there is no doubt in my mind that the errant golfer is responsible. Identifying and catching him/her is a different matter. I am equally sure that there is a definitive answer in Florida. Perish the thought that someone might ask a Florida attorney for a written opinion, and pay him/her for the opinion. You get what you pay for

Since you have a professional connection (and I'm sure access to the proper law libraries on-line) why don't you help us out with an answer to the original question? That is why we have TOTV because someone is curious and is looking for help from someone who knows or might be able to find the answer.


Another similar finding to Fourpar:

http://www.iiaba.net/IAMag/NewsViews/082307.html

[smalldog]

http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/m...t=IMG_0171.jpg Smalldog thinks GOLF Gentlemen Only, but since we now have ladies also :dontknow:THEYwill have to proceed as would Gentlemen
Realmen know they are responsible for their actions and act accordingly ........... I was once on Becal when a golfball impacted the windshield of the cart in font of mine breaking it ......... the golfer showed up shortly and traded information with the people in that cart don't know what happened after that :bigthumbsup:

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by hdken

How can it be so difficult to get an answer to a simple question? This has nothing to do with morals; it has everything to do with law. As an attorney in NY who lives on a golf course, there is no doubt in my mind that the errant golfer is responsible. Identifying and catching him/her is a different matter. I am equally sure that there is a definitive answer in Florida. Perish the thought that someone might ask a Florida attorney for a written opinion, and pay him/her for the opinion. You get what you pay for

A'hm jist plain folk from southwest Ohio, and I don't know nothin' bout the law or lawyers. What I do know is what I learned in Catholic School. It's about morals. If ya break somethin' that belongs to someone, it's your fault. Ya better see that it gets fixed.

[redwitch]

Gracie, dahlin, y'all said it poifectly (in case the NYers don't understand Southern).

[Fourpar]

smalldog,

Totally different set of circumstances. If a golfer hits someone/thing that is in reasonable proximity of the course of play (ie intended path of the ball) then the golfer has a responsibility for effects of striking his ball. That would presumably include the rough, hazards etc. So (regardless of how slow the group ahead is >) if I hit into them and injure someone; well, that is certainly my responsibility.

Now that is very different from an errant ball striking a house beside, and therefore not in the intended course of play. This has been tried in many courts, and while there are many other factors involved in most cases, absent any other facts that indicate negligence, the golfer cannot be held responsible. Heck, even the pros occasionally hit a fan or house along the way and they are not responsible for damages. How can anyone reasonably expect us hackers be held to a higher standard? Not reasonable on its face.

On this forum there are two opposing views on this topic for sure. But what must be remembered is we are talking about negligence. That is to say, a person fails in a duty (by their action or omission of an act) to exercise reasonable care, and someone else suffers a loss as a result. But the bottom line is a golfer, absent other facts & circumstances, intends to hit his/her ball toward the target. But the golfer only has so much control over the ball's flight, and certainly not enough to reasonably predict its flight every time the ball is struck. Thus the golfer isn't (absent other issues) liable for the effects on people/houses along the course's perimeter.

When I build/buy a house on a golf course I assume a few things. One is I won't have as much privacy as I would off the course, so I'll see/hear things I may not like. Another is I will get errant balls in my yard and yes, maybe in my house if my windows face the course. These results can be reasonably expected, thus are accepted by the homeowner. Those who do not wish to assume that risk should not build/buy on a golf course.

[Russ_Boston]

Thanks Fourpar for the informed answer. I think I get it now.

If I'm going to injure someone I should make sure it is with an errant shot so that my intent was not obvious. Now if i can just get my intended target to place herself 200 yards downwind and slightly off the course I should be able to angle myself 10 degrees askew and let 'er rip!

[Fourpar]

;D, That'll work :